The growing tendency of different state police forces to cross jurisdictional boundaries in order to arrest individuals for their opinions marks a troubling shift in India’s legal and political landscape. What was once governed by established procedural safeguards now appears, in several instances, to be replaced by a more muscular, immediate form of law enforcement that prioritises coercive action over due process. The implications extend far beyond individual cases. At stake is the delicate balance between citizen and state, where dissent, considered an essential democratic right, is increasingly treated as a prosecutable offence that transcends territorial limits. This is not an aberration confined to one political party only. Across the political spectrum, virtually all political parties in power seem eager to deploy their state machinery to pursue critics. The cumulative effect is the normalisation of a playbook that privileges intimidation over dialogue, raising uncomfortable questions about the erosion of civil liberties and the shrinking space for free speech of citizens. The 2021 arrest of climate activist Disha Ravi offers a stark illustration.
Picked up from Bangalore by Delhi Police in connection with a digital “toolkit” linked to the farmers’ protests, the operation drew immediate scrutiny from legal experts. It may be pertinent to mention here that the Delhi Police is fully controlled by the Union Home Ministry. Concerns were raised over the apparent bypassing of procedural norms, including the failure to secure a transit remand from an appropriate local court or adequate coordination with local police. A similar pattern was visible in the 2018 arrest of a Delhi socialite Abhijit Iyer-Mitra.
Also Read
Following controversial remarks about the Konark Sun Temple, the Biju Janata Dal-controlled Orissa Police travelled to Delhi to take him into custody. His case was, however, a bit different as he had applied for anticipatory bail in the Supreme Court under the pretext of his life being in danger, which the Apex court rejected, thereby compelling Orissa Police to go to Delhi and fetch him. What followed was a prolonged legal ordeal involving multiple FIRs and even a breach of privilege motion by the Orissa Assembly. The episode, which ended only after an unconditional apology from Abhijit Iyer-Mitra, who was in judicial custody for over a month in Bhubaneswar’s Jharpada jail, and withdrawal of charges, highlighted how legal processes themselves can become instruments of prolonged punishment. More recent cases suggest that the trend has not abated.
In May 2025, Mamata Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress governed Kolkata Police arrested law student Sharmistha Panoli from Gurgaon, Haryana, over alleged communal remarks made in a video. Despite her subsequent apology and removal of the content from social media, she faced multiple charges before securing interim bail. Critics viewed the episode as disproportionate, reinforcing concerns about the criminalisation of free speech. The attempted arrest of Congress leader Pawan Khera in April 2026 further illustrates how such state powers can intersect with political rivalry.
Acting on allegations linked to defamatory claims against BJP ruled Assam’s Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma’s wife, Riniki Bhuyan Sarma, Assam Police initiated proceedings against Khera that were ultimately checked by judicial intervention. The Supreme Court’s remarks, cautioning against politically motivated arrests, served as a reminder that the power to detain must not become a tool of partisan retribution. Assam Police had reached his Delhi residence to arrest but as he was in Congress-ruled Telangana at that time, it saved him from imminent harassment.
In May 2026, Congress ruled state Telangana’s Police move to pursue Doordarshan journalist Ashok Shrivastav in connection with critical remarks regarding the Congress and its leadership during his TV shows on the government channel signals that the continued readiness of states, no matter which party is in power where, to extend their reach beyond borders in matters of free speech is worrisome.
A case was registered at Begumpura police station in Hyderabad based on a complaint by a member of the Youth Congress alleging that Shrivastav used “derogatory” and “insulting” comments about Leader of the Opposition Rahul Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge during his programmes. Telangana Police arrived at his residence in Ghaziabad, to serve a notice and initiate legal proceedings. Reports indicate that Shrivastav, possibly due to getting tipped off earlier, could not be found at his home when the police arrived. In most such cases, the High Courts are generally noticed siding with the state governments.
Precisely to insulate the judiciary from local pressures and ensure impartiality, the policy of appointing Chief Justices of High Courts from outside their home states had emerged in the late 1970s. Following the controversial mass transfer of judges during the Emergency, the Law Commission’s 80th Report in 1979 formally recommended that High Court Chief Justices should be from outside the state. It reflected an understanding that federal structures require checks against provincial overreach.
Ironically, while such safeguards sought to preserve neutrality and fairness, contemporary politically motivated policing practices risk undermining those very principles since the judiciary is constantly failing to stop government machinery from persecuting individual citizens. The case of Ranveer Allahbadia, a podcaster and YouTuber shows another interesting aspect.
For an alleged vulgar remark on a TV channel, various people were politically motivated to file cases against him at different locations across the country. It was a clear case of terrorising an individual for speaking up, vulgar or otherwise. Courts are not noticed to take initiative to club such cases which are obviously designed to harass and humiliate a helpless individual. India’s democratic resilience has long depended on its ability to accommodate dissent within the framework of law. The increasing use of interstate police action to curb free speech threatens to invert that very framework.
